Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
houstonderek wrote:
Seriously, four years of a Republican messing stuff up,
We gave Bush 2 four years to mess things up. He did mess things up and got himself elected to a second term. Whoever is sitting in the Oval Office in the next four years is going to appoint anywhere from one to three justices to the Supreme Court.
Like it or not, America is set up so that either an R and D is going to be sitting in that chair next January. The path that got us there was traveresed in decades and isn't going to be reversed by the results of one election.
If the Progressives are serious about wanting to change this country, they've got to do what the Christian coalition did, working their way for decades. And that's to forget about the Presidency for now and work their way through the grassroots. They allowed the fundamentalists to outflank them there for the last half century and they are paying the price for that neglect.
I'm rather hoping a Romney loss will destabilize the Republican party enough (and many Rs seem to think it could) that we open the field to third parties for the first time in a long time.
I'm liking the Modern Whig party, atm. They might get my down ticket, where applicable.
I'm rather hoping a Romney loss will destabilize the Republican party enough (and many Rs seem to think it could) that we open the field to third parties for the first time in a long time.
I'm liking the Modern Whig party, atm. They might get my down ticket, where applicable.
My prediction is one more election cycle. Romney's loss will just convince the hardliners that they lost because they went with the moderate not the hardcore conservative. They'll double down on the crazy in 2016. And 2014, but it might work better in an off year election.
After that, they'll either have to reorganize in a saner fashion or disintegrate. Even beyond the obvious failures, the demographics are against them. To quote Senator Lindsey Graham: ”We’re not generating enough angry white guys to stay in business for the long term.”
Don't want to lose those union member joe sixpack votes. Hate to break it to you, but I'm pretty sure most union people couldn't give a flip about gay marriage.
Granted, I work in Massachusetts, but I'm pretty sure that most of my co-workers give a flip about gay marriage.
Some of them are, of course, gay themselves. Also, it's pretty difficult these days to have an extended family and not have a homosexual in there somewhere.
I'm not going to say that my co-workers are all liberals, or PC nature's noblemen. But I think you'd be surprised.
Also, given the flap a while back, it seems like Obama was having a harder time getting the black churches on board with his non-position on gay marriage, not the unions. Just sayin'...
Look at everything that Obama has done over the past four years. Has Romney given any indication that he'd go in a different direction? We all know about Romneycare. Obama fought against gay rights in every way that he could over the past four years. Romney supports the Lilly Ledbetter act. Romney supports abortion. Romney is silent on the fact that the Obama administration is trying to be able to send Americans to prison without trial.
The two leading candidates are just smoke and mirrors to keep the average American distracted.
For the record, his point was, however stupidly put, that 47% of the population isn't going to vote for him, no matter what, so he isn't going to bother trying to convince them to.
But look at how he describes those "47%". Plenty of people who vote Republican are part of that non-income-tax-paying group: poor Southerners, active-duty military, retired, students. He's playing into the same insane right-wing argument that only people who the government pays will vote Democratic.
What's more, he's running against someone who is now and has previously campaigned on representing all of America, regardless of whether they vote for him. It's a boneheaded, counterfactual, just plain idiotic statement. Whether or not he actually believes it.
houstonderek wrote:
But, you guys keep supporting the Montsano exec appointing, U.S. citizen assassinating, Wall Street nut sack swinging "liberal". Don't demand that the "left" leaning party actually offer a liberal candidate, and keep thinking there will be a whit of difference between either of those douchebags.
Dude, what the hell are you reading that has people on the left calling Obama a liberal? He's not. He hasn't even made much of a claim to being one. At this point he's campaigning on being the sane centrist adult in the room compared to the lunatic robot. Nobody's holding him out as some sort of progressive vanguard except for people who use "liberal" and "progressive" as swear-words.
houstonderek wrote:
Sorry, I don't see how liberals can vote for someone who loves bombing Arabs and South Asians with remote drones, has just as little respect for international law as his predecessor, and has, if anything, accelerated the erosion of civil liberties and basic freedom from government oppression that Bush started.
thejeff has already called you out on gay rights contrasts and I've already talked about how to actually accomplish progressive goals, but I can get foreign policy.
Liberals can vote for him because he hasn't started any full-scale wars with Arabs or South Asians, when offered several good justifications for doing so, and because he's ended a pointless war with Arabs, just like he promised. Also, for the first time in decades, the US has non-dictatorship allies in the Middle East that aren't Israel.
He's also running against someone who has called for military containment of Russia and China, the US's allies, and keeps making troubling noise about going to war with Iran.
houstonderek wrote:
Vote Green then. Or Socialist. Let the Dems know you want a REAL Progressive, and not a DINO. The only reason there's "no choice" is everyone is stuck in their binary thinking.
Quote:
Seriously, four years of a Republican messing stuff up, if it results in real Progressives being elected, is preferable to four more years of fake liberalism, if it results in one party getting their heads out of their asses and actually looking out for us.
Yeah, send a message by voting Nader. That'll showed the Ds and Rs that they're best off moving left! Worst-case, Bush can't be that bad, right?
If you want to pull US politics left, the way to do it is to primary Democrats and/or push for third parties in races where they can win. You are actually in an amazing place to do just that: Houston has a number of Democratic politicians who are essentially running unopposed. Make Sheila Jackson Lee actually sweat her primary. Make Al Green prove his progressive bonafides with a left-wing third-party challenge.
houstonderek wrote:
Obama is going to lose, all the oversampling and poll cooking isn't going to stop that.
Wait, what? What's all this about?
And now, DWD.
Darkwing Duck wrote:
Look at everything that Obama has done over the past four years. Has Romney given any indication that he'd go in a different direction?
Well, he wants to repeal PPACA and Dodd-Frank, decrease taxes some more, cut tax deductions, turn Medicare into a voucher system, saber-rattle at the US's allies, and ban abortion and gay marriage.
So yes. He has.
Quote:
We all know about Romneycare.
And we also know that he's campaigned on repealing PPACA and wants privatize the US's one single-payer health insurance system.
Quote:
Obama fought against gay rights in every way that he could over the past four years.
Romney is silent on the fact that the Obama administration is trying to be able to send Americans to prison without trial.
I don't know what Romney's view is on this, but the Obama administration supported (and succeeded in) removing that language from the NDAA for 2013, which quietly passed last May.
Stein's got my vote. A candidate (a) with a brain, who (b) is not manifestly evil? Yeah, sign me up. And by election day I'll be out of Texas, so my vote might actually count.
Stein's got my vote. A candidate (a) with a brain, who (b) is not manifestly evil? Yeah, sign me up. And by election day I'll be out of Texas, so my vote might actually count.
All the right qualifications, except for a chance of winning and thus actually getting the chance to do anything she promises.
My comrades in the New Hampshire commie club are calling for a vote for Stein, but I've had 20 years to perfect my "Voting is for ninnies!" position and will, personally, pass.
Just a quick comment on the thread title, since it's been bugging for awhile.
I don't think Obama deserves a second term. I don't think that's the right way to think about it. It implies the election is a referendum on the incumbent and if he doesn't deserve it then we pick someone else.
That's not the way it works.
No one deserves the Presidency. You just try to pick the best available candidate.
If I thought Obama had done well enough to deserve it, but I thought
the challenger would do better, I'd support the challenger.
If I didn't think Obama had done well enough, but I thought the challenger would do worse, I'd support Obama.
If you really think they're both equally horrible, make a meaningless protest vote and hope you don't regret it later.
I've made that mistake.
In 2010 Obama's lawyers fought against repealing DADT. They even brought an injunction against repealing DADT once it was ruled unconstitutional.
The credit for the repeal of DADT belongs to Patrick Murphy whose efforts put Obama in a position where Obama could no longer fight against the repeal of DADT without suffering significant political embarrassment.
As for DOMA, Obama wants to pull a Bush (i.e. act stupid) on the issue. He claims that his beliefs are in 'transition'. But, what direction are they transitioning? He supported gay marriage earlier in his life. Now, he's not sure? What's that vector?
As for Romney and abortion, I can point to multiple video clips where he says that he supports a woman's right to choose. The fact is that, as with most things, he doesn't actually stand for either position. Which is another way that he's similar to Obama - he gives a mixed message on abortion. For example, Romney care in Massachusetts covers abortion. Obamacare does not. In fact, the National Catholic Reporter (which, I assume, is as pro-life as newspapers come) rates Obama more pro-life than Romney is.
In 2010 Obama's lawyers fought against repealing DADT. They even brought an injunction against repealing DADT once it was ruled unconstitutional.
The credit for the repeal of DADT belongs to Patrick Murphy whose efforts put Obama in a position where Obama could no longer fight against the repeal of DADT without suffering significant political embarrassment.
Obama played it too conservative catering to military interests who opposed DADT because it would somehow affect combat readiness. Patrick Murphy and the Log Cabin Republicans forced his hand by appealing to the Supreme Court. Contrast this with Witt v. Air Force, where the DOJ quietly didn't appeal a Circuit Court ruling that DADT was unconstitutional, allowing Margaret Witt's discharge to be vacated.
There is a damn sight difference between "fighting gay rights at every turn" and "being too cautious about making a large pro-gay-rights change that he went ahead and made anyway". It was a bad call to appeal, but when you consider that it was Obama's statements about the uselessness and inappropriateness of DADT that were a major part of the case to repeal, it's hard to justify your nonsense about fighting gay rights.
Dump on Obama for that all you want, but don't for a moment pretend like it's somehow equivalent to restoring DADT and implementing a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, both on Romney's platform.
Quote:
As for DOMA, Obama wants to pull a Bush (i.e. act stupid) on the issue. He claims that his beliefs are in 'transition'. But, what direction are they transitioning? He supported gay marriage earlier in his life. Now, he's not sure? What's that vector?
Obama instructed the DOJ not to enforce the marriage-is-between-a-man-and-a-woman part of DOMA because he felt it was unconstitutional discrimination. This is a fairly radical step; generally, the DOJ defends laws-as-written regardless of how the president feels about them.
There is a damn sight difference between "fighting gay rights at every turn" and "being too cautious about making a large pro-gay-rights change that he went ahead and made anyway".
He took no initiative that wasn't politically expedient.
Call that whatever you want to, just don't call it praise-worthy or supportive of the LGBT community.
And, for the record, the overwhelming majority of the military supported the repeal of DADT in 2010.
So, no. Obama wasn't "being too cautious". The military -already- was in support of the repeal.
Just curious, what did Bush II do that was so beyond the pale compared to Clinton before him and Obama after?
Here's an incomplete list.:
Bush weakened the laws preventing religious tax-deductable contributions from being used for religious or political purposes.
Bush threatened to veto a law adding sexual orientation to hate crimes laws.
Bush banned federal funding of stem cell research that wasn't from "existing cell lines", a de facto stem cell research ban. (This one can't even be pinned on Congress; it was an administration regulation, not a proper law.)
Bush withdrew from the Kyoto Protocol, claiming that human activity had not been proven to be a cause of global warming.
Bush wanted to open drilling in ANWR.
No F&%~ing Child Left Behind.
The Bush tax cuts.
Medicare part D.
Bush wanted to privatize Social Security.
Bush withdrew US funding of the UN Population Fund.
There's a list of some things that Bush supported or did that neither Clinton nor Obama were in favor of.
Darkwing Duck wrote:
He took no initiative that wasn't politically expedient.
Call that whatever you want to, just don't call it praise-worthy or supportive of the LGBT community.
These are some pretty rapidly moving goalposts. First, Obama fights gay rights at every turn. Wait, no, now he only supports them when it's expedient. What's your argument going to be when I punch a hole in that?
And, of course, this position is still exactly like Romney's, who, uh...wants to amend the Constitution to make improving gay rights impossible.
Quote:
And, for the record, the overwhelming majority of the military supported the repeal of DADT in 2010.
Obama was the one who called for that Pentagon survey, and called for a repeal of DADT in his (January) 2010 State of the Union address, and was working to get DADT repeal language into the annual defense appropriations bill as early as February 2010, when McCain threatened to filibuster any bill that would repeal DADT.
How is that Obama fighting gay rights at any turn?
Of course, the problem with comparing Obama with Romney is that Romney has taken almost every position on almost every issue at one time or another. Sometimes within minutes.
I don't see any reason that we'll get the Massachusetts Romney should he win. With a conservative base and a Tea Party congress, it's far more likely he'll stick with the more conservative bent he's taken while running. He'll have his re-election to worry about after all.
It may be stupid to believe politicians, but it's even dumber to assume they're lying when they promise horrible things.
Exception to the rule:
He believes he should be President. He believes his taxes should be lower. Both of those have been consistent.
Seriously, four years of a Republican messing stuff up, if it results in real Progressives being elected, is preferable to four more years of fake liberalism, if it results in one party getting their heads out of their asses and actually looking out for us.
6 years (2001-2007) didn't so what makes you think 4 more will?
Just a quick comment on the thread title, since it's been bugging for awhile.
I don't think Obama deserves a second term. I don't think that's the right way to think about it. It implies the election is a referendum on the incumbent and if he doesn't deserve it then we pick someone else.
That's not the way it works.
No one deserves the Presidency. You just try to pick the best available candidate.
If I thought Obama had done well enough to deserve it, but I thought
the challenger would do better, I'd support the challenger.
If I didn't think Obama had done well enough, but I thought the challenger would do worse, I'd support Obama.
If you really think they're both equally horrible, make a meaningless protest vote and hope you don't regret it later.
I've made that mistake.
I regret Obama now. I would regret a second term from him. I'll regret Romney.
Do you regret that we don't have Vice President Palin?
I dunno, I just want to add my voice to the din of Obamapologists who seem to be saying. Hey. We pick the least crappy choice every time. In the presidential race it may never be a genuinely good choice again, due to a myriad of reasons, not least of which is the national media. However, local politics or even state elections (congress, senate) is where you can really make a difference, as we saw to great effect with the Tea Party revolution 2 years back. Furthermore, as we're seeing now, it's from those seats that politicians for the national stage are culled.
You can't just wake up one day and hope to have a Green or a Socialist or even a Libertarian president who hasn't served some lower office, so start your activism there.
To me a big issue is the SCOTUS. The first step in fixing this country, I think, is reversing citizens united and getting unchecked money out of politics. As part of a larger agenda to get ALL money out of politics, of course.
I regret that the Dems nominated an empty suit with no real record to pin him down on. I regret that there apparently isn't a viable Progressive or liberal candidate in all the land.
I'd be more inclined to be against obama if ANY of the criticism coming from the right was specific, fact based, detailed how he could have done anything differently, or was at least consistently rational. It seems like the right is willing to throw out an chewbacca defense it can think of.
He's "weak" is not specific
He was born in Kenya is not fact based
He couldn't make a deal with republicans ignores that the republicans specifically set out not to make a deal with him.
He's a dictator ramming things down peoples throats is inanely contradictory with the idea that he's weak.
I have a hard time believing that a millionaire asking for tax breaks for millionaires so the wealth will trickle down actually believes his own malarky. Romney knows where the wealth goes when his taxes are cut: to switzerland, the Cayman islands, and other off shore tax havens, NOT invested in America. Trickle down economics is both patently ludicrous and has a 40 year history of not working.
I regret that the Dems nominated an empty suit with no real record to pin him down on.
McCain still happened the last four years. He didn't stop being a Senator or right-wing talking head. Any issue you care to name, I can tell you where McCain stood on it. For example, on the two issues you've named in this thread, McCain threatened to filibuster the DADT repeal and has been sharply critical of the US for not intervening in Syria and for not taking a harder line on Iran.
The problem is that you're comparing Obama to the imaginary perfect candidate that exists in your head, not to any candidate that actually ran. "Regretting Obama" is meaningless unless there's someone you would rather have had.
Quote:
I regret that there apparently isn't a viable Progressive or liberal candidate in all the land.
Do you regret that we don't have Vice President Palin?
I dunno, I just want to add my voice to the din of Obamapologists who seem to be saying. Hey. We pick the least crappy choice every time. In the presidential race it may never be a genuinely good choice again, due to a myriad of reasons, not least of which is the national media. However, local politics or even state elections (congress, senate) is where you can really make a difference, as we saw to great effect with the Tea Party revolution 2 years back. Furthermore, as we're seeing now, it's from those seats that politicians for the national stage are culled.
You can't just wake up one day and hope to have a Green or a Socialist or even a Libertarian president who hasn't served some lower office, so start your activism there.
To me a big issue is the SCOTUS. The first step in fixing this country, I think, is reversing citizens united and getting unchecked money out of politics. As part of a larger agenda to get ALL money out of politics, of course.
I dunno, She's easier on the eyes than Biden, and just as stupid, so it's probably a wash.
As to the Green or Socialist or Libertarian? Well, the Libertarian candidate, Gary Johnson, has more practical experience right now than Obama did in 2008. Seriously, any time someone brings up "experience", I wonder where they were when Obama was running. Talk about a thin resume and a nearly non-existent voting record. So that's an argument I don't take seriously from Obama supporters. Jill Stein has run for office a lot, not won anything, and has no practical experience, but at least I can call up her academic record at Harvard and see she was an outstanding student. Obama still hasn't let anyone see his.
Here's my point. Obama, if the Right Wing had a brain, would be lauded as the greatest Republican president since, I dunno, Clinton.
Yeah, I understand that local and state politics is where change starts. Doesn't mean I don't have the right to point out that the emperor is conspicuously lacking in garments when everyone coos over how beautiful the non-existent silk on the hem is.
And I agree 100% that money needs to be completely removed from politics. I wonder how many poor kids could have been put through college on the money raised for even mid-term election. I'm sure if it was all added up, campaign contributions from the last twenty years could have put the a generation through school. Or paid for single payer health care. Or fixed all the bridges, roads, levies and the like that are in desperate need of repair.
As to the SCOTUS. Um, Obama's two appointees? One's a racist (Sotomayor - her Second Circuit opinion on the New Haven firefighter's case was almost criminally negligent and wrong) and the other is a buffoon (Kagan, frankly, is no better than the idiot Bush tried to nominate). So, not much different from the other seven. Not really comforting there. Unfortunately, the only decent one, Stevens, retired. And even he was completely wrong in Kelo v. New London.
The next to leave will probably be Ginsburg (good riddance, her vote on the second part of U.S. v Booker may be one of the worst ship jumps from the first part - she voted correctly there - in the new millennium. Basically, she decided that "making s#!~ up that a defendant never plead to, nor was proven in court" (i.e. preponderance of the evidence - i.e. something that 200+ years of precedence said had ZERO place in a criminal proceeding) is a perfectly acceptable way to determine a sentence for someone that pleads guilty to doing "x", but gets sentenced for doing "x" plus "y", "z" and other made up stuff that a defense attorney never had a chance to challenge in court and the defendant never plead to in his plea agreement. Stevens dissent to that (and his dissent in Chapman v. U.S.) were two of the best SCOTUS opinion reads pretty much in my lifetime. If Obama replaces her with someone just like her, well, screw amendments four through eight. If you can guarantee he'll appoint another Stevens, then maybe I'll get on board, for that one issue. And that would be it. But his last two appointees make me really doubt he even knows anyone qualified to sniff Steven's shoes.
I regret that the Dems nominated an empty suit with no real record to pin him down on.
McCain still happened the last four years. He didn't stop being a Senator or right-wing talking head. Any issue you care to name, I can tell you where McCain stood on it.
The problem is that you're comparing Obama to the imaginary perfect candidate that exists in your head, not to any candidate that actually ran. "Regretting Obama" is meaningless unless there's someone you would rather have had.
Quote:
I regret that there apparently isn't a viable Progressive or liberal candidate in all the land.
I'd be more inclined to be against obama if ANY of the criticism coming from the right was specific, fact based, detailed how he could have done anything differently, or was at least consistently rational. It seems like the right is willing to throw out an chewbacca defense it can think of.
He's "weak" is not specific
He was born in Kenya is not fact based
He couldn't make a deal with republicans ignores that the republicans specifically set out not to make a deal with him.
He's a dictator ramming things down peoples throats is inanely contradictory with the idea that he's weak.
I have a hard time believing that a millionaire asking for tax breaks for millionaires so the wealth will trickle down actually believes his own malarky. Romney knows where the wealth goes when his taxes are cut: to switzerland, the Cayman islands, and other off shore tax havens, NOT invested in America. Trickle down economics is both patently ludicrous and has a 40 year history of not working.
Ok, so how do you feel about criticism coming from the left? From Noam Chomsky? Glen Ford? Articles in Salon and HuffPo taking him to task for basically being no better than Bush on a slew of topics? Yeah, focus on the side that wouldn't vote for him, I dunno, ever, and ignore that there is a pretty big contingent of lefties who have nothing for someone they consider nothing better than the second coming of Bush. Or, as Glen Ford described him: "not the lesser of two evils, but the more effective evil".
Sorry, I'm pretty much a radical. I have no time for someone that, for all practical purposes, is no better than Bush.
I dunno, She's easier on the eyes than Biden, and just as stupid, so it's probably a wash.
I don't get it. You want a progressive but you're s+~#ting on Biden? A 35-year senator who headed two committees is somehow as stupid as a failed Alaska governor who resigned facing ethics charges and tanked an entire presidential run almost single-handedly?
And who's talking about practical experience this election? Romney was a governor, Ryan's been a rep for 13 years. People are talking about foreign policy experience, where Ryan has none and Romney has been saying terrifically boneheaded things and surrounding himself with GWB advisors, but leadership experience isn't lacking in either ticket. Unless you mean the occasional criticism of Stein for having no leadership experience, but that's more a case of people criticizing her for holding positions she will never, ever need to defend or have to push through as legislation, because she knows her campaign is mostly a Green Party visibility stunt.
Quote:
Yeah, I understand that local and state politics is where change starts. Doesn't mean I don't have the right to point out that the emperor is conspicuously lacking in garments when everyone coos over how beautiful the non-existent silk on the hem is.
Who is doing this? Nobody's worshipping the ground Obama walks on. At best people are happy with his foreign policy and mildly pleased about his domestic accomplishments. Where are you getting this "F~%* YEAH BEST PRESIDENT SINCE FDR" narrative from?
Quote:
Jill Stein has run for office a lot, not won anything, and has no practical experience, but at least I can call up her academic record at Harvard and see she was an outstanding student. Obama still hasn't let anyone see his.
This is the third Fox News-specific talking point I've seen you make lately. First Willie Horton, then "oversampling" (as if every pollster, Rasmussen included, were somehow in the tank for Obama!), now this. What about Obama's academic record do you care about? Is a C+ instead of an A going to make you say, "Oh wait, I guess he's not really qualified to be president after all"? I know why Breitbart/Drudge are bringing it up, as a sop to racist/Birther conspiracy theories about Obama pretending to be an immigrant or benefiting from affirmative action. Not sure why you are, though.
Quote:
Hyperbole (coupled with sarcasm), perhaps you've heard of it. I've mentioned Jill Stein more than once, you know. And she's definitely Progressive.
And, still, they couldn't seem to find one to run in 2008.
Jill Stein isn't anything. Like I said before, she's not proposing any plans that she'll ever have to defend from anyone or attempt to implement. It's easy to hold ideologically pure positions when you never have to worry about convincing anyone to agree to them.
As for 2008, Kucinich ran, as did Biden. (Also Mike Gravel, who had a handful of progressive ideas in his grab-bag of weird positions.) They just didn't stand a chance against Clinton and Obama.
I'd be more inclined to be against obama if ANY of the criticism coming from the right was specific, fact based, detailed how he could have done anything differently, or was at least consistently rational. It seems like the right is willing to throw out an chewbacca defense it can think of.
Ok, so how do you feel about criticism coming from the left? From Noam Chomsky? Glen Ford? Articles in Salon and HuffPo taking him to task for basically being no better than Bush on a slew of topics?
Just curious, what did Bush II do that was so beyond the pale compared to Clinton before him and Obama after?
** spoiler omitted **
There's a list of some things that Bush supported or did that neither Clinton nor Obama were in favor of.
So, I'm kind of nonplussed about this list. I mean, yeah there isn't one thing on there that I'm terribly happy about, but it's kind of amazing what ISN'T listed there (see the Black Agenda Report's 15 Things the Repubs and the Dems Agree Upon, somewhere up above).
But, you're smart, you already knew that, that's why you left them off. As for what's left:
Spoiler:
You've got a bunch of environmenal shiznit that I, honestly, don't know much about. But I never got the impression that the eco-lefties were particularly happy about Obama, either. I mean, isn't he drilling the shiznit out of Alaska?
You've got the Tax Cuts, which, of course, Obama extended.
Then you've got No Child Left Behid which I thought wasn't that different from Race to the Top, but I'm sure you'll inform me of the differences.
Then there's stem cell research and weakening the state and church divide and some stuff about democratic rights for homosexuals and Medicare Part D, etc.
I mean, I don't know. I agree that Bush and Co. were a bunch of demented psychopaths, but I would have expected a more yawning abyss separating them from the Democrats the way Comrade Jeff was scarso scarred by voting for Nader.
Well, just to start, I've got no reason to think Gore would have pushed through the two sets of tax cuts Bush did, repealing and more the changes the Clinton Administration made. That would have been a huge chunk of the deficit right there.
I doubt Gore would have so lightly dismissed reports that Al Qaeda was planning to attack the US. "All right. You've covered your ass, now."
Whether that would have led to stopping them I don't know.
While, had the attacks made it through, we probably still would have invaded Afghanistan, I see no reason to think we would have jumped into Iraq. That was a neocon project. If we'd concentrated on Afghanistan, it might have gone better than it has.
And for your rebuttal, Obama extended the tax cuts as part of a deal to keep unemployment insurance extended in the midst of the recession among other things. He'd also promised not to raise taxes on the middle class and the Republicans wouldn't allow the cuts to be split up. I'm not I agree with his tactics, but it's hard to see what else he could have done.
More generally, when asked about differences, most people don't bother listing things that are the same.
More generally, when asked about differences, most people don't bother listing things that are the same.
Yup. My only point being that they've got quite a bit in common--imperialism, plutocracy, police state, etc., etc.--which you guys are smart enough to leave off.
As for Iraq, yeah, that was a neocon project, but Clinton left the sanctions in place ("We believe a million dead babies are worth it" said Madeleine Albright) and bombed it once or twice. I mean, it's not like the imperialist American war machine has run out of places to bomb or invade when the Democrats are in power.
I'm always surprised when liberals talk about how "we" could have done better in Afghanistan. I have never been able to see any actual justification for that invasion.
More generally, when asked about differences, most people don't bother listing things that are the same.
Yup. My only point being that they've got quite a bit in common--imperialism, plutocracy, police state, etc., etc.--which you guys are smart enough to leave off.
As for Iraq, yeah, that was a neocon project, but Clinton left the sanctions in place ("We believe a million dead babies are worth it" said Madeleine Albright) and bombed it once or twice. I mean, it's not like the imperialist American war machine has run out of places to bomb or invade when the Democrats are in power.
I'm always surprised when liberals talk about how "we" could have done better in Afghanistan. I have never been able to see any actual justification for that invasion.
Nor have I, frankly. But, given that we did invade, not turning our backs on it to concentrate on Iraq might have kept the situation from spinning out of control. If we'd been competent and focused we might have killed Bin Laden and gotten out of there years ago, before the Taliban rebuilt itself. That's all I mean by better.
Possibly not. It might still have turned into a clusterf$~%.
We still wouldn't have invaded Iraq. Probably kept up the sanctions, which were bad enough, but nothing compared to the charnel house that Iraq became.
I've never denied they've got quite a bit in common, but the differences are real and shouldn't be ignored either.
Republican and Democrats are both responsible for our massive debt. 16 Trillion dollars? Are they insane? I realize social issues are important to a lot of people, but to me - nation debt seems like the elephant in the room. Or... perhaps freight train... filled with elephants.
We need the Fair Tax. I don't care who implements it. The president that does will go down in history as the man or woman that put the country back on the path towards prosperity.
Republican and Democrats are both responsible for our massive debt. 16 Trillion dollars? Are they insane? I realize social issues are important to a lot of people, but to me - nation debt seems like the elephant in the room. Or... perhaps freight train... filled with elephants.
As long as people are willing to keep giving us money, we can keep going into debt. Most of our current debt has come from the ecconomy collapsing causing a massive reduction in income. The only way the government can really help that is with increased spending.
We need the Fair Tax. I don't care who implements it. The president that does will go down in history as the man or woman that put the country back on the path towards prosperity.
The "Fair Tax" is one of the worste tax models we could have. Its a massive increase in tax burden for lower income and a huge windfall for the wealthy. It creates a disproportional tax on people based off of the percentage of income that they spend. People who don't make enough to save anything end up effectively paying the rate as a full % of their income. People who can save money end up getting a tax break on any income they don't spend. They can then make that untaxed income grow indeffinetely, increasing the gap between wealthy and poor.
The "Fair Tax" is one of the worste tax models we could have. Its a massive increase in tax burden for lower income and a huge windfall for the wealthy. It creates a disproportional tax on people based off of the percentage of income that they spend. People who don't make enough to save anything end up effectively paying the rate as a full % of their income. People who can save money end up getting a tax break on any income they don't spend. They can then make that untaxed income grow indeffinetely, increasing the gap between wealthy and poor.
This is simply not accurate. This would put MORE money into the hands of Americans, not less. Those at the lower income would stand to gain the most from the Fair Tax. A prebate is issued to households which would cover the basic needs, such as food.
Keep in mind something. Corporate taxes would be eliminated from businesses - thus making the United States the world's greatest tax haven for business. When taxes are raised on businesses, the business doesn't actually pay that additional tax. The cost of goods is simply increased. The fair tax simply replaces the inclusive taxes already present in goods.
Phbbbtt!
Conumption tax. Then all those rich people that decide to live modestly won't spend their money on yachts and Maseratis and won't pay their fair share!
Republican and Democrats are both responsible for our massive debt. 16 Trillion dollars? Are they insane? I realize social issues are important to a lot of people, but to me - nation debt seems like the elephant in the room. Or... perhaps freight train... filled with elephants.
As long as people are willing to keep giving us money, we can keep going into debt. Most of our current debt has come from the ecconomy collapsing causing a massive reduction in income. The only way the government can really help that is with increased spending.
And right now interest rates for government borrowing are so low, it's stupid not to borrow. Treasuries are effectively selling at below inflation rates. It's free money.
We need the Fair Tax. I don't care who implements it. The president that does will go down in history as the man or woman that put the country back on the path towards prosperity.
The "Fair Tax" is one of the worste tax models we could have. Its a massive increase in tax burden for lower income and a huge windfall for the wealthy. It creates a disproportional tax on people based off of the percentage of income that they spend. People who don't make enough to save anything end up effectively paying the rate as a full % of their income. People who can save money end up getting a tax break on any income they don't spend. They can then make that untaxed income grow indeffinetely, increasing the gap between wealthy and poor.
This particular version has a "prebate" that helps with that on the low end. On the high end though, this plan really helps the rich get richer: Any money they can not spend and instead invest is never taxed. This lets them grow richer and pull money out of the real economy and into speculative bubbles. Not a good plan.
OK. Never mind. These people are either lying or have no clue about tax policy.
Fair Tax wrote:
Is the 23% FairTax higher or lower when compared to the income taxes people pay today?
Most people are paying that much or more today -- much of it is just hidden from view. The income tax bracket most people fall into is 15 percent, and all wage earners pay 7.65 percent in payroll taxes. That’s 23 percent right there, without taking into account the 7.65 percent employer matching!
Tax brackets are marginal. If you're in the 15% bracket, you don't pay 15% on all your income. And that's not even counting the standard deductions.
The "Fair Tax" is one of the worste tax models we could have. Its a massive increase in tax burden for lower income and a huge windfall for the wealthy. It creates a disproportional tax on people based off of the percentage of income that they spend. People who don't make enough to save anything end up effectively paying the rate as a full % of their income. People who can save money end up getting a tax break on any income they don't spend. They can then make that untaxed income grow indeffinetely, increasing the gap between wealthy and poor.
This is simply not accurate. This would put MORE money into the hands of Americans, not less. Those at the lower income would stand to gain the most from the Fair Tax. Also, the Fair Tax has absolutely nothing to do with savings. It is a consumption tax. Income is not taxed at all.
Right. Rich people will pay a lower top rate and not pay it on any of their income they don't spend on consumption, which means they'll pay less, probably much less. The rich do splurge on expensive toys, but the bulk of their money is put to work earning more money, now untaxed.
That means either tax revenues drop, leading to even bigger deficits or the rest us of pay more.
US debt will mean nothing after the international proletarian socialist revolution.
'Til then, I expect that the plutocrats will continue to play their games of printing up trillions of bucks when the banks need handouts but go "tut tut tut" when it comes to paying for education and government-employees' pensions.
But, you're smart, you already knew that, that's why you left them off.
Actually I just went down a list of "political positions of George W. Bush" and listed stuff that neither Clinton nor Obama supported until I got bored.
Quote:
You've got a bunch of environmenal shiznit that I, honestly, don't know much about. But I never got the impression that the eco-lefties were particularly happy about Obama, either. I mean, isn't he drilling the shiznit out of Alaska?
No. (MoJo, granted, but they have a bunch of "eco-lefties" who would call this sort of thing out.)
Quote:
You've got the Tax Cuts, which, of course, Obama extended.
As part of a deal with Republicans to get a bunch of other legislation passed.
Quote:
Then you've got No Child Left Behid which I thought wasn't that different from Race to the Top, but I'm sure you'll inform me of the differences.
RTTT sucks, but it sucks for mostly different reasons. RTTT is a bunch of grant money that is thrown at the wall to see what sticks to improve education, and thus isn't very efficient or useful. NCLB actively defunded schools that didn't meet its standards.
Fenzl wrote:
Republican and Democrats are both responsible for our massive debt. 16 Trillion dollars? Are they insane? I realize social issues are important to a lot of people, but to me - nation debt seems like the elephant in the room. Or... perhaps freight train... filled with elephants.
Neither Republicans nor Democrats are responsible for the national debt compared to the degree that a massive economic downturn is responsible for the debt. Nobody's forgetting the national debt: in fact, one of the US's two parties is campaigning on WE MUST DEAL WITH THE DEBT NOW.
The national debt doesn't matter, though. What matters is inflation and the US's ability to borrow, both of which are affected by the national debt : GDP ratio, but inflation is below targets and the US can currently borrow at effectively negative interest. These may become likely to become a problem when the US's economy picks up again, and something will need to be done about the deficit then, but if the US's economy crashes again in the meantime then the debt won't matter much at all.
Quote:
We need the Fair Tax. I don't care who implements it. The president that does will go down in history as the man or woman that put the country back on the path towards prosperity.
FairTax is regressive and destroys the ability of the federal government to use tax deductions to shape behavior. (It also taxes the exceeding rich less than it does everyone else, but so does our current system.) It's possible to offset this by giving rebate payments, but those would immediately come under attack as "handouts".
It also abolishes payroll taxes, which kind of suck, but are a large reason that it's more difficult to attack Social Security.
The "Fair Tax" is one of the worste tax models we could have. Its a massive increase in tax burden for lower income and a huge windfall for the wealthy. It creates a disproportional tax on people based off of the percentage of income that they spend. People who don't make enough to save anything end up effectively paying the rate as a full % of their income. People who can save money end up getting a tax break on any income they don't spend. They can then make that untaxed income grow indeffinetely, increasing the gap between wealthy and poor.
This is simply not accurate. This would put MORE money into the hands of Americans, not less. Those at the lower income would stand to gain the most from the Fair Tax. A prebate is issued to households which would cover the basic needs, such as food.
The government would need to get the same ammount of money it currently does. SInce it would now be taxing spending instead of income, the higher the percentage of your income that you spend, the more you would end up paying in tax as a percentage of your income. The poorer you are, the higher of a percentage you have to spend in order to pay for living expenses. Thus, the tax burden shifts disproportionately to those who spend more of their income, and the lower your income bracket the worse off you are.
Quote:
Keep in mind something. Corporate taxes would be eliminated from businesses - thus making the United States the world's greatest tax haven for business. When taxes are raised on businesses, the business doesn't actually pay that additional tax. The cost of goods is simply increased. The fair tax simply replaces the inclusive taxes already present in goods.
Not true. The tax that the corporations used to pay now gets put onto what people are buying. Overseas proffits are not taxed, so US consumers need to make up that difference. Also, with our current model when taxes increase coropations spend more of their proffits to bypass the tax increase by reinvesting in their company. This disincentivises any re-investment in the company if favor of milking it for short term proffits.
But, you're smart, you already knew that, that's why you left them off.
Actually I just went down a list of "political positions of George W. Bush" and listed stuff that neither Clinton nor Obama supported until I got bored.
Quote:
You've got a bunch of environmenal shiznit that I, honestly, don't know much about. But I never got the impression that the eco-lefties were particularly happy about Obama, either. I mean, isn't he drilling the shiznit out of Alaska?
No. (MoJo, granted, but they have a bunch of "eco-lefties" who would call this sort of thing out.)
This plus this makes me think that the fact that Obama isn't drilling on that specific piece of ground maybe isn't all that important.
But, like I said, I don't follow environmental shiznit much.
Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
houstonderek wrote:
I regret Obama now. I would regret a second term from him. I'll regret Romney.
The only reason to regret voting for Obama is that if you feel that a different vote had a legitimate chance of getting a better President. Cain/Palin was not that choice. And despite any other presences on the ballot, there were no other choices.
Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
A Man In Black wrote:
Neither Republicans nor Democrats are responsible for the national debt compared to the degree that a massive economic downturn is responsible for the debt. Nobody's forgetting the national debt: in fact, one of the US's two parties is campaigning on WE MUST DEAL WITH THE DEBT NOW.
Fighting two wars while enacting massive tax cuts just might have been a contributing factor.
I regret Obama now. I would regret a second term from him. I'll regret Romney.
The only reason to regret voting for Obama is that if you feel that a different vote had a legitimate chance of getting a better President. Cain/Palin was not that choice. And despite any other presences on the ballot, there were no other choices.
No, that's not the only reason.
Another would be supposing Obama was the lesser of two evils, realizing he's not, and now you've just made it very possible for him to have 2 terms of not doing what you thought he'd do instead of one.
Just conjecture on my part, though. I dunno what's goin on in HD's head.
Is what is currently going on in Libya/middle east the event that breaks the camels back and changes the election. Was it really the film that caused this mess or i s the film in fact a lie and that this was preplanned for 9/11 and was about drone attacks/the release of certain hostage . Several media sources and white house sources are saying it was preplanned and the movie was just ans excuse. Obama says on Letterman its becuase of this shady character and his movie that caused it.
I believe hes stretching the truth and once the story unfolds it will be the same as what jimmy Carter went through with the hostages.
Is what is currently going on in Libya/middle east the event that breaks the camels back and changes the election. Was it really the film that caused this mess or i s the film in fact a lie and that this was preplanned for 9/11 and was about drone attacks/the release of certain hostage . Several media sources and white house sources are saying it was preplanned and the movie was just ans excuse. Obama says on Letterman its becuase of this shady character and his movie that caused it.
I believe hes stretching the truth and once the story unfolds it will be the same as what jimmy Carter went through with the hostages.
I kind of hope he wins, so I can hear all the excuses his supporters will make after the economy crashes again. Kind of hard to keep blaming Bush in your 2nd term as President. Obama might have to learn a new phrase... "personal responsibility".
